Miss J Clifford v British Airways plc [2025]

In this case, the Employment Tribunal (“ET”) found that the Respondent had discriminated against the Claimant, a long-serving cabin crew member, by failing to make reasonable adjustments for her disability-related anxiety and dismissing her without properly exploring alternative roles.

The Claimant had worked for the Respondent for nearly 40 years. Following Covid-19 furlough and redundancy uncertainty, she developed anxiety, depression and work-related stress when asked to return to flying duties. The Respondent's medical service assessed her as unfit to fly, though she remained willing to work in a ground-based role. She proposed a phased return through ground duties at Gatwick (closer to home) to reduce travel-related stress. The Respondent rejected this as "not feasible" and instead offered a temporary "help hub" role at Heathrow, supporting passengers with reduced mobility. The ET found this environment too fast-paced and noisy, and noted the commute exacerbated the Claimant’s symptoms.

Despite medical advice supporting permanent ground duties and a gradual return, the Respondent maintained that fitness to fly was essential for continued employment. Medical professionals consistently recommended phased returns of between six weeks to three months, with the Respondent's own health service recommending nine weeks of ground duties. However, the Respondent offered only a three-week placement in recruitment, which the ET found insufficient for someone requiring a sustained rehabilitation period.

The Respondent ultimately dismissed the Claimant for incapacity in December 2022, with termination taking effect in March 2023. The ET held that the dismissal process failed to properly consider reasonable adjustments or explore suitable alternative roles.

The ET was critical of the inflexible approach, and found the Respondent had failed to take account of the Claimant's individual medical circumstances, instead attempting to apply a "usual" phased return approach rather than addressing her specific needs.

This case reinforces that employers should meaningfully consider alternatives to dismissal, particularly where medical evidence supports adjustments such as alternative duties, different locations, or phased returns. It highlights the importance of ensuring decisions are guided by medical evidence and where possible, avoid adopting an inflexible approach.